My oldest recovery

January 28, 2008

While vacationing last summer, I took the time to visit my oldest mark to date, TY7765, VULCAN. It was set by the U.S.L.S. in 1869 near Copper Harbor, MI. This was especially interesting, because while vacationing at Fort Wilkins, my daughter was participating in a historic role-playing program, where they do historical interpretation at the Fort, which is set in 1870.

Later in the afternoon, I mentioned our find to the gentleman in charge of the Future Historians role-playing program, and found out that he has a folder of information from the USLS from that time period, when they were working in the Copper Harbor area.

I put off logging this one on geocaching until I had the chance to look through at least some of the information. Much of the information is contained in daily journals of the steamers from the USLS that were working in the area, taking soundings in Lake Superior. I still have more to go through, but I have determined that the Monumented date on this station appears to be misleading.

After poring through the 1869 journal of the steamer "Search" I found references to building a station or two, but only to the *use* of station VULCAN. On my last visit, I started looking through the journal from the steamer "Surveyor" from 1866-1867, and was surprised to find that while they documented building a number of stations in the area and on Isle Royale, the station VULCAN was referred to in these journals as well. I posted a photo of an entry from August, 1867 in my log.

I don't know if I will find a log entry in the information I have locally to the building of this station, but either way it's been very educational and some very interesting reading. How times were different then...

Journal of the steamer "Search"

Saturday July 10, 1869

"A heavy rain storm prevailed all day long, accompanied by some thunder. Remained on board all day. Our attention was called to an eagle on a tree on shore, but he escaped before he could be fired upon. Received a letter..."

Edited January 28, 2008 by andylphoto

4.1k · January 28, 2008

Congrats on the old one!

I think you have mistaken the benchmark being set, with when it was monumented.

When it was set is when it was actually placed. When it was monumented was when it was added to the national database (terminology might be wrong). We have marks around here that were set in the early 1900's and monumented into the database in the early 1950's.

John

4.1k · January 28, 2008

While you were there, did you see the blazes that were on the trees?

Here is a couple of shots that might be one of the blazes.

The triangle in the middle of the picture might just be one blaze mentioned.

The yellow box is where the enlarged shot came from.

John

January 28, 2008

Hey John,

Thanks for the information. I had always assumed that the "monumented" date was the date the station was set. "Monumented" in my mind equates to "built." I didn't realize that was the date that it made it into the database.

No, we didn't bother to look closely for the trees. I think we may have looked briefly, but the entire hill had been logged fairly recently. Parts were clearcut; the area of the monument was selectively cut. The trees left standing were all smaller. Some were a decent size, but nothing that would have been a 14 inch tree 30 years ago. The area you note in your picture would be approximately NE of the station, somewhere in the vicinity of the 14 inch maple in the datasheet, but I think too far east. We just concentrated on finding the station and reference marks, then trying to find an easier path down the hill.

If I decide to make another trip to this station next summer, I'll allot more time, and maybe consider bringing my metal detector along to search for the AZ mark. I'll look closer for the blazed trees then too. This trip I didn't even bring a tape, so we were pacing off distances and kicking around in the leaves and dirt to find the RMs.

EDIT: I'll take a look when I get home--I have area shots of the RMs as well. I'll see if have a clearer shot that includes that (or other) trees.

Edited January 28, 2008 by andylphoto

1.2k · January 28, 2008

When it was set is when it was actually placed. When it was monumented was when it was added to the national database (terminology might be wrong). We have marks around here that were set in the early 1900's and monumented into the database in the early 1950's.

Excellent point. I recently recovered FY4480. Date "monumented" is 1981. Date stamped on the disk is 1965.

-Paul-

January 28, 2008

Congrats on the old one!

I think you have mistaken the benchmark being set, with when it was monumented.

When it was set is when it was actually placed. When it was monumented was when it was added to the national database (terminology might be wrong). We have marks around here that were set in the early 1900's and monumented into the database in the early 1950's.

John

John, I don't believe this is correct. I believe Monumented date = date it was set.

What you may have noticed is that when old marks were added into the database in the 1950s the original date was unknown or lost and so the date of adding to the database was use,

More often in cases like this the Monumented date is set to "UNK" (Unknown) and the first date after is when it was added.

There are also many cases I have seen when the monumented date was set unknown in the history section, but the actual monumentation with the correct date was given in the log. All of these inconsistencies I think just indicate typos, oversights, etc. Remember adding this date to the database was a massive undertaking based on old paper records and it was done by clerks, not surveyors.

4.1k · January 28, 2008

Here is an example of a mark set in 1917 and monumented in 1954. Note, there is only 1 monument date on the datasheet. This mark is a GLO marker and was monumented by the USGS.

NGS datasheet

GC.com benchmark page

I don't think the USGS was part of the General Land Office, but they took advantage of the work done by them.

John

January 28, 2008

Here is an example of a mark set in 1917 and monumented in 1954. Note, there is only 1 monument date on the datasheet. This mark is a GLO marker and was monumented by the USGS.

NGS datasheet

GC.com benchmark page

I don't think the USGS was part of the General Land Office, but they took advantage of the work done by them.

John

No doubt there are many datasheets like that. What I'm saying is these datasheets were put together long after the original surveys were done and that this is an example of an error in the datasheet.

As I said in my note above, the datasheets were put together (sometime in the 1960s) by clerks, not surveyors, and there are plenty of these types of problems. We see them all the time on this forum with discriptions from 2 marks getting exchanged, marks in wrong states, etc. etc. There's probably 2 - 3 of these case brought up here every month - and often times DaveD will say "I'll talk to the data base guy and have that fixed".

I believe monumented means monumented and it's highly probable that cases like those mentioned are data input errors, and don't imply the monumented doesn't mean monumented.

DaveD: what's your take on this? The definitions given on the NGS pages for the different sections of the datasheet just uses "monumented" as a given, without defining it. The only note is "Landmarks will say 'FIRST OBSERVERED' rather than 'MONUMENTED'". That alone tells me this has nothing to do with entering something into a data base.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Papa-Bear-NYC

4.1k · January 28, 2008

Here is an example of a mark set in 1917 and monumented in 1954. Note, there is only 1 monument date on the datasheet. This mark is a GLO marker and was monumented by the USGS.

NGS datasheet

GC.com benchmark page

I don't think the USGS was part of the General Land Office, but they took advantage of the work done by them.

John

No doubt there are many datasheets like that. What I'm saying is these datasheets were put together long after the original surveys were done and that this is an example of an error in the datasheet.

As I said in my note above, the datasheets were put together (sometime in the 1960s) by clerks, not surveyors, and there are plenty of these types of problems. We see them all the time on this forum with discriptions from 2 marks getting exchanged, marks in wrong states, etc. etc. There's probably 2 - 3 of these case brought up here every month - and often times DaveD will say "I'll talk to the data base guy and have that fixed".

I believe monumented means monumented and it's highly probable that cases like those mentioned are data input errors, and don't imply the monumented doesn't mean monumented.

DaveD: what's your take on this? The definitions given on the NGS pages for the different sections of the datasheet just uses "monumented" as a given, without defining it.

If a mark is originally set as a vertical control mark then later used as a horizontal control mark it will have 2 different monument dates. The 1st date for when it was actually set (as a vertical control) and the 2nd date for when the data was updated to include the horizontal positioning. It may even be give it own PID at the time of monumenting for horizontal control use (even though the actual date stamped on the mark was the earlier date.).

John

2.7k · January 28, 2008

I think the order of things is this:

1. The mark is physically set (marked) by some state, local, or national 'agency'.

2. Measurements at made the mark.

3. Calculations, based on the measurements made at the mark are completed.

4. The mark's position data is added to the 'agency's database.

5. The mark's position data is added to the CGS/NGS database.

I think the monumentation date is #2, and the other 4 really have no recorded date in the NGS database.

It's likely that the span of time from #1 to #4 is probably within a few weeks. DaveD?

The monumentation date is when the position of the item was established for the type of monument it is. A particular physical mark could have more than one monumentation date. So HN0800 was monumented by the GLO in 1917 (and presumably added to their database around then) as a cadastral (not geodetic) mark, and then monumented again by the USGS in 1954 as a horizontal control (geodetic) mark. The NGS database, being only concerned with the horizontal control aspect of the mark, only records the 1954 monumentation date. The date that the CGS/NGS obtained the USGS's data on this mark is not recorded in the datasheet. Maybe it was 1965, for instance. DaveD?

Oddly, station VULCAN has 3 monumentation dates! Presumably all were for horizontal control. I think procedure has changed somewhat from around 1900 to the recent decades as to what is a RESET and what is not. I believe that the triangular metal piece may have been set in 1935, not 1869 or 1908, but it's impossible to tell from the current writeup.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Black Dog Trackers

January 28, 2008

If a mark is originally set as a vertical control mark then later used as a horizontal control mark it will have 2 different monument dates. The 1st date for when it was actually set (as a vertical control) and the 2nd date for when the data was updated to include the horizontal positioning. It may even be give it own PID at the time of monumenting for horizontal control use (even though the actual date stamped on the mark was the earlier date.).

John

No

Monumentation is monumentation. It is not measurement and it is not database inclusion. Usually #1 and #2 in BDT's list are done by the same team (and often on the same day) and that establishes the monumentation date. Whether it's #1 or #2 is irrelevant since they are the same date.

But Having 2 monumentation dates for one monument is an oxymoron.

When a mark is reused for a new purpose (call it a found mark), the monumented date is usually set to unknown - since the key punch operator in 1966 (or whenever) saw on the paperwork that the leveling crew used a "found" mark which they did not set (often from another agency), and having no way to know when that was set, just punched the code for "unknown". There are plenty of examples of this:

KU1645 "PALISADES RM 2"

This disk was set in 1930 as a reference mark for KU3890 "PALISADES" but this fact would be unknown to the clerk in 1966 (or when ever). So he/she correctly put

HISTORY - UNK MONUMENTED CGS

Notice he/she did not put 1956, when the mark was surveyed by the leveling crew.

Now with the on-line database we can look up the data for KU3890 and discover that the disk was actually set in 1930.

And another:

KU0912 SPY RM 1.

Here the monumented date is 1930, which is correct since that was when it was set as an RM for KU0913 "SPY". He did not use 1952 when the leveling was done. But how did the clerk know the date in this case? Easy, the leveling team also surveyed the main triangulation station SPY in 1952, so both marks were entered by the clerk at the same time (notice the sequential PIDs). If you don't think the leveling was done in 1952, look at all the other marks set in 1952 along the NY Central RR at that time.

Notice also for both examples the monumentation agency was "CGS" (1930) but the leveling agencies (1952 and 1956) was NGS.

Last example:

KU0914 "X 337 USE"

This has the history lines:

HISTORY - UNK MONUMENTED DOD

HISTORY - 1952 GOOD NGS

This is like SPY, except it's a USE disk and was not in any CGS or NGS files. The disk clearly says United States Engineers so the crew gave it a designation including "USE" but they also put "X 337" in the designation. This 337 level line was done in 1952. The monumentation date was set Unknown, which is the correct setting, not 1952. When was the USE disk set? Dunno. One would have to dig out the old USE records for the Hudson River for the early 1900s.

There are plenty more examples if you look closely at them.

2.7k · January 28, 2008

Certainly it is true in the case of the DOD mark the DOD had the monumentation date for what they were using the mark for. Whether or not those dates get into the NGS database probably varies. I have found some marks when I was looking at data last week and found some marks that had monumentation dates after some recovery dates. I'm not sure what that's about. I think the rules have changed over the years and that's why both the idea that there is only one monumentation date, and it is before all recover dates is usually seen, but there are some weird situations that may be the result of older conventions, for instance, VULCAN has 3 monumentation dates. I will look for and give some of the ones that had monumentation dates after recovery dates. They may be errors, and they may reflect other agencies histories that got into the NGS database.

There are several old marks in which the marker type (monumentation) was changed (like from a hole or bolt to a disk). In the past few decades, this would be a RESET even if the mark was put in the same hole. In the past, these were not RESETs; the change was just described in the history. In some cases the monumentation type field is changed, while in other cases, it reperesents the originial mark type.

I don't think any one rule covers how all the data that we see came to be, unfortunately.

I think the time between events #1, #2, and #3 have varied a lot over the years. To get from #1 to #2, taping with metal tapes was done, bilby towers were sometimes built - the time could have been many days. Before 1945 logarithms were used to get from #2 to #3 and that may have taken days or weeks in realtime (and many hours in actual time). This reference is where I got this info.

January 29, 2008

Oddly, station VULCAN has 3 monumentation dates! Presumably all were for horizontal control. I think procedure has changed somewhat from around 1900 to the recent decades as to what is a RESET and what is not. I believe that the triangular metal piece may have been set in 1935, not 1869 or 1908, but it's impossible to tell from the current writeup.

My understanding of monumentation has been more along the lines of what Papa Bear describes. I guess a part of that assumption was based on cases, as pointed out, where the monumentation is marked as "unknown," but a description follows at a later date.

As far as VULCAN having three monumentation dates, I can't necessarily explain that. I can't say with any certainty what was done in 1908, but the 1935 date makes sense in one respect, as the three reference marks were set at that time. I was assuming that the triangular piece was the copper bolt referred to in the description, and had been a part of the original setting. Given the write-up that was added regarding the reference marks that were added in 1935, it seems that they would have described this addition in more detail, had it been added then. It also seems that it would have been noted had the addition been made in 1908. But you're right--any argument is backed by silence on this point. I think the most compelling case that could be made would be based on the type of monument that was typically set by the USLS in the 1860s. That is information I don't have.

While we're discussing this and other stations, and waiting for DaveD to possibly chime in, I'll add another question. I'd also be interested in more information on the two latitude posts that were set: TT7764 and TT7763. The datasheets describe them as wooden posts, and provide what appear to be adjusted coordinates, (the NGS datasheet says "NO CHECK") and precisely accurate references to station VULCAN. What would these posts have looked like (i.e. how big?) and how exactly would they have been used? As I noted previously, I made a cursory search for the posts, but found nothing. Not that I expected to find 100 year-old wooden posts stuck in the ground in the Keweenaw Peninsula.